The holes that formed in the ozone layer over Antarctica in 2011 and 2012 are a study in contrasts. The 2011 hole (top left) ranked among the ten largest recorded since the 1980s, while the 2012 hole (top right) was the second smallest.
Why were they so different? Is it a sign that stratospheric ozone is
recovering? These are the questions NASA scientists Anne Douglass,
Natalya Kramarova, and Susan Strahan asked as they examined the holes
using data from instruments on NASA’s Aura and NASA/NOAA’s Suomi NPP satellites.The images above represent the typical method of gauging the ozone
hole. They show the extent (the geographic area covered) and the depth
(the concentration of ozone from top to bottom in the atmosphere) as
measured by Aura’s Ozone Monitoring Instrument.
Blues and purples represent the lowest ozone levels. Each image shows
the day of maximum extent—when the ozone hole was largest that year.But the view of area doesn’t tell the whole story, said Douglass. It
says nothing about the chemistry or atmospheric dynamics that give the
hole its shape. And if we don't know why the size and depth of the hole
varies, it is impossible to know if policies meant to reduce ozone
depletion (such as the Montreal Protocol) are having an impact. 2011 and 2012 offer prime examples.The Antarctic ozone hole forms in the southern spring when chlorine
and other ozone depleting chemicals interact with sunlight to destroy ozone.
It would be easy to assume that a larger ozone hole means more
chemicals were present, but the real picture is more complicated.“2011 would have had less ozone even without ozone depleting
chemicals,” said Strahan. Stratospheric ozone is naturally produced in
the tropics and transported to the poles. In 2011, winds blew less ozone
to Antarctica so there was less to destroy. Strahan also found less
chlorine in the atmosphere over Antarctica in 2011 than in other years,
but because there was less ozone, a large hole developed.In 2012, ozone depletion in the lower atmosphere was severe, said
Kramarova. But in early October of 2012, winds blew in more ozone at
higher levels, above the depleted area. The high-level ozone masked the destruction at lower altitudes, and so the hole looks small in the OMI image.All of this means that the size of the ozone hole is not the only
indicator of how well policies to control ozone-depleting chemicals are
working. “Ozone holes with smaller areas and a larger total amount of
ozone are not necessarily evidence of recovery attributable to the
expected chlorine decline,” said Strahan. “That assumption is like
trying to understand what’s wrong with your car’s engine without lifting
the hood.”In fact, the fluctuating size of the ozone hole has not been tied to
chlorine concentrations since the 1990s, as shown in the two graphs
above. The first graph depicts chlorine concentrations, and the second
shows ozone hole size over time. In the 1980s, ozone hole area increased
in step with chlorine concentrations, but that relationship broke down
in the 1990s. The atmosphere became saturated with chlorine, and the
additional chlorine did not have enough ozone to react with. Adding more
chlorine in these conditions no long increases ozone depletion, and so
the size of the ozone hole was no longer directly related to chlorine
concentrations.Since the 1990s, the ozone hole area has been controlled entirely by
weather. The chemicals that destroy ozone are so long-lived that
Douglass, Strahan, and Kramarova don’t expect to see the impact of the
Montreal Protocol until about 2025 when chlorine levels drop below
saturation. Full recovery should occur sometime between 2058 and 2090,
based on projections of levels of ozone-depleting gases and their
break-down and transport.

My blogs are an open house to all cultures, religions and countries. Be a
follower if you like it, with this action you are building a new
culture of tolerance, open mind and heart for peace, love and human
respect.